In the Beginning (Part 3): Free Will or God's Setup?

In the previous post we looked at the LDS doctrine of the fall in contrast with the Biblical teaching on the subject.  We will now consider the additional LDS scriptures that influence the interpretation of the original sin in contrast with Romans 5.

In 2 Nephi 2:22-25 and Moses 5:10-11 two competing commands are explained.  God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply the earth” is set in juxtaposition with the command “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”  According to these LDS scriptures, Adam and Eve would not have been able to bear children if they did not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Yet, God wanted them to bear children so there would be opportunity for all God’s spirit children to come to earth for a time of mortal probation to learn and progress.

The LDS Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual explains it like this:

In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Moses 2:28). He also commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:17). As long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit, they would remain in the garden and would not die. But they also would not be able to obey the command to multiply (Moses 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:23). Heavenly Father gave them agency to choose between the two commands. [1]

To an outside observer, this LDS theology can appear to be teaching that God trapped Adam and Eve into violating one of the two commands and that God is a deceiver and the author of sin.  There’s actually a technical term for this kind of conflicting communication.  It’s called a “double-bind.”  I remember studying about this in psychology.  Case studies have demonstrated a link between this kind of dysfunctional communication of parents and mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, in their children.

While LDS would vehemently deny that God is the author of sin or a conniving deceiver, the doctrine remains a difficulty for LDS theologians to explain.

BYU professor Alonzo Gaskill puts it like this:

“[Adam and Eve] were given two simultaneous commands that could not both be kept. For God to command Adam and Eve not to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and also command them to multiply and replenish the earth (which they could do only if they partook of the ‘forbidden’ fruit), is to place them in a logical paradox in which they cannot possibly be obedient. That is contrary to the nature of God (I Nephi 3:7). Additionally, for God to then administer repercussions (akin to penalties) for their disobedience to one law–when He Himself had required that they break that law so as to fulfill another law–runs entirely counter to God’s nature, to the eternal principle of agency, and to the entire plan of salvation. God simply would not do this–to Adam and Eve or to you and me. To do so would be to act unmercifully, unjustly, and unrighteously.  Of course it must be remembered that nowhere in scripture do we have a full acount of exactly what took place in the Garden surrounding the giving of the command not to partake of the ‘forbidden’ fruit.  Something is clearly missing in each of the authorized accounts of the Fall.  Something additional must have happened that is unclear in the story of the Fall but revealed through modern prophets.” [He goes on to explain how modern prophets have taught that God gave Adam and Eve “information” so that they knew which command they should choose to follow, and that when God said “don’t eat” God really meant “eat.”]  [2]

BYU professor Stephen Robinson goes on to claim that the Garden of Eden was a period of “duress” (??) and he refers to the Eden experience as a “setup”:

“After all, the ‘transgression’ was committed under duress in the ‘setup’ in the Garden with its extremely limited options, was committed without Adam and Eve having full moral understanding or accountability, was necessary for the further progress of God’s plan, and was fully intended by God to be the outcome of the Eden experience.” [3]

No such opposition of commands occurs in the Biblical narrative.  Adam and Eve could have continued in their Garden of Eden bliss and could have propagated innocent children who knew no evil.  There is no biblical statement that they could only have had children if they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The book of James denies the possibility that God would engage in this kind of double-bind setup:

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”  (James 1:13-17).

According to Romans 5, Adam and Eve sinned by partaking of the forbidden fruit.  According to James 1, God is not responsible for anyone’s sin, but a person is drawn away of their own lusts which bring forth sin.  The Biblical view of the fall is that Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan, drawn away of their own lusts, and sinned as an act of their own free will.

1. Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 12

2. Gaskill, Alonzo L. The Savior and The Serpent: Unlocking the Doctrine of the Fall, p. 14.

3. Robinson, Stephen E., Following Christ, p. 49.

Advertisement